Legal Case Summary
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049 [1989] AC 53; [1988] 2 All ER 238; [1987] UKHL 12; (1988) 152 LG Rev 709; (1988) 85(20) LSG 34; (1988) 138 NLJ Rep. 126; (1988) 132 SJ 700
NEGLIGENCE, DUTY OF CARE, POLICE DUTIES, DUTY TO APPREHEND CRIMINALS, LIABILITY TO PERSONS INJURED AS A RESULT OF CRIME
Facts
The plaintiff’s 20-year-old daughter was attacked at night in a city street and died from her injuries. The defendant was a chief constable of the area in which the street was located. The attacker was convicted of the murder of the daughter and had allegedly committed a number of offences of murder against young women in the same area over a period of years prior to the deceased’s murder. The plaintiff claimed damages against the defendant for negligence on grounds that having investigated the previous cases of murder in the area, the police had failed to apprehend the attacker and prevent the murder of her daughter. The Queen’s Bench struck out the writ and statement of claim as disclosing no cause of action. The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues
(1) Do the police owe a general duty of care to apprehend an unknown criminal?
(2) Did the police owe Jacqueline Hill an individual duty of care to investigate the earlier murders and apprehend the attacker before he could harm her?
Decision/Outcome
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. Lord Keith explained that police officers can incur ordinary tort liability for injury directly caused by their conduct. The police also have a public duty to enforce the criminal law. The question here was whether the investigation gave rise to a duty of care owed specifically to Jacqueline Hill.
Even if further harm was foreseeable, there was insufficient proximity. The attacker had never been in police custody, and Jacqueline Hill faced the same risk as a large class of potential victims. Lord Keith distinguished Dorset Yacht, where officers had custody of the boys who escaped and nearby yacht owners were exposed to a particular risk. He also considered that imposing a duty in this case could encourage defensive policing and divert resources from investigations.
